RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. Some times local politics and petty squabbles can go to ridiculous propositions in the violation of civic sense, good neighbour conduct and regard for the convenience and tolerance of others. This is one such case. The petitioner complains that his neighbour, the respondent No. 3, as a matter of per sonal prestige, spills sullage and sewage from his old privy and latrine and dis charge it infront of his house. Apparently when these two neighbours could not sort put their differences amongst them, the issue reached the local authorities. These were the Gorakhpur Development Authority, respondent No. 1 and the Nagar Mahapalika, Gorakhpur, the respondent No. 2. The Gorakhpur Development Authority functions under the U. P. Urban Planning and Develop ment Act, 1973 and the Nagar Mahapalika Gorakhpur, under the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. As both these public bodies are in- charge of city planning and its maintenance, they dis charge public duties for the benefit of the public. 2. The petitioner complained to the Gorakhpur Development Authority of the inconvenience and the health-hazard, he was being subjected to by the respondent No. 3 from the discharge of the filth and sullage from an open service latrine in-front of his house. The petitioners com plaint was enquired into by the Gorakhpur Development Authority. A Junior En gineer gave a report. The essence of which is that the respondent No. 3 was in fact, discharging sewage and sullage off his latrine, infront of the petitioners house. The allegation against the respondent No. 3 is that he had constructed a service latrine as opposed to a flush latrine. 3. But this respondent contended before the Gorakhpur Development Authority that the old latrine had col lapsed and he had merely reconstructed it. Thiss is not an issue before the Court as what concerns the Court is that raw sewage and sullage from this respondents service latrine is being so discharged ir responsibly in the locality. This shows that this respondent does not have any civic sense at all. The issue should have died after the order of Secretary, Gorakhpur Development Authority. This order is dated 27th November, 1981. In effect, the respondent No. 3 was directed to convert his service latrine into a flush latrine so that his privy does not act as a health-hazard and a nuisance to the members of the locality. The issue should have died after the order of Secretary, Gorakhpur Development Authority. This order is dated 27th November, 1981. In effect, the respondent No. 3 was directed to convert his service latrine into a flush latrine so that his privy does not act as a health-hazard and a nuisance to the members of the locality. Respondent No. 3 was given about one months time to under take the necessary changes for sanitation within and outside his house. Apparently, this respondent did not take the hint and was in a mood to pursue the matter urther as if to retain his service latrine and irevent the conversion of its into a flush latinc. 4. This was not a matter ii which this respondent should have filed an appeal before the Commissioner, orakhpur Division. This was appeal No. 45/g 1981, Pheku-Ram Yadav v. Gorakhpur Develop ment Authority and another. The appellate order is itself peculiar. The respondent No. 3 did not succeed in whatever he sought. Before the learned Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, the recorded an un dertaking on his willingness to convert the service latrine into a flush latrine "in due course of time". Having recorded this un dertaking the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, set aside the order of the Secretary, Gorakhpur Development Authorityand remanded the case for a decision afresh on certain observations made in this appellate order. Once the undertaking of respondent No. 3 had been recorded the issue should have died before the Divisional Commissioner in the ap peal. The High Court is unable to agree with the learned Commissioner that he could not locate any provision under the U. P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 that a person could be compelled to convert a service latrine into a flush latrine. The learned Commissioner, how ever, does observe that there may be other laws on this. Indeed there are other laws for this and even if there were not, the Constitution of India provides sufficiently to put an end to scavenging. As long as there will be service latrines the institution of scavengers will also exist shamefully. 5. The Gorakhpur Development Authority and the Nagar Mahapalika, Gorakhpur have not answered the writ petition by a countei-affidavit. Likewise, the State of U. P. has also not filed a counter-affidavit. As long as there will be service latrines the institution of scavengers will also exist shamefully. 5. The Gorakhpur Development Authority and the Nagar Mahapalika, Gorakhpur have not answered the writ petition by a countei-affidavit. Likewise, the State of U. P. has also not filed a counter-affidavit. The single most con tributing factor which even to-day promotes to this horrible concept of untouchability, is that society has not permitted manual scavenging as an institution to die by a one stroke effort 10 eliminate this abhorable practice by flush toilets. 6. The court mentions this aspect as the issue between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 is whether a service latrine could exist or not. This issue con tinued in a revision under Section 41 (3) of the U. P. Urban Planning and Develop ment Act, 1973 before the State Govern ment. The revision was filed by the petitioner against the Commissioners Order. The High Court cannot blame the petitioner for this because if the Commis sioner had set aside the order of the Gorakhpur Development Authority and refrained from granting liberty to convert the service latrine to a flush latrine in due course of time, the harassment, the incon venience and the health-hazard in so far the petitioner or for that matter the people of the locality were concerned, would have ceased. To do some act in due course of time is as good as not doing it at all. 7. This revision before the State Government was heard before the Joint Secretary, Urban Development. The decision is dated 1-2- 85. On the ground that no affidavit of respondent No. 3 was to be found on record, the State Govern ment was of the view that it is not possible to give any decision on merits and the petitioner was unsuited on the ground that with an incomplete record the matter can not even be placed before the Secretary for his decision. The revision of the petitioner, in effect was rejected. The en tire exercise of the petitioners complaint on his object that the respondent No. 3 be restrained from using a service latrine which the latter was obliged to convert into a flush latrine stood frustrated. To arrange for drainage, sewage and garbage removal is a public and statutory obliga tion of a municipality, no less of citizens of their civic obligations. To arrange for drainage, sewage and garbage removal is a public and statutory obliga tion of a municipality, no less of citizens of their civic obligations. Thus, the petitioner rightly filed this writ petition to seek performance of public obligations. 8. Since 1981 and today, 15 years have passed and the High Court is examining the issue whether the respondents were correct in offering resistance to convert a service latrine into a flush latrine, The two orders of the respondent authorities, one of the Divisional Commissioner dated 25-6-1984 (Annexure-II) and the other of the State Government dated 1-2-1985 (An-nexure-III) have basically declined to in terfere in the matter. 9. The State Administration and every local authority which is in-charge of a local body, whether it is a City Corpora tion, Municipality or a Town Area Com mittee needs to be reminded that provid ing civic amenities is a statutory obliga tion. Besides, the discipline of continuing sanitation is also a public duty of those, who are invested with the charge of municipal functions. Since the matter before the Court relates to a City Corpora tion on matters relating to sanitation, the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, sufficiently provides for the disposal of sewage, water, closets, privies, urinals as also the inspection of them. The building regulations provide that the drainage and the sanitary arrangement will not effect the stability of tenements and the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari has been vested with suffi cient authority to either demolish or to cause to be repaired any insanitary arran gement in the building. Failure to act will imply that the City Corporation is abdicat ing or not performing its public duty. 10. In case respondent No. 3 has not already converted his service latrine into a flush latrine as of date, then, as he has represented before the Court, he will do so within three months from today failing which the Nagar Mahapalika, Gorakhpur, or the Gorakhpur Development Authority, as the case may be, will have it converted within one month thereafter, at the expenses of this respondent. 11. In these circumstances the peti tion succeeds with the order of the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division dated 25-6-1984 and the State Government dated 1-2-1985 being quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to costs separately on this petition from respondent No. 3 and from the State of U. P. arrayed as respondent No. 12. 11. In these circumstances the peti tion succeeds with the order of the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division dated 25-6-1984 and the State Government dated 1-2-1985 being quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to costs separately on this petition from respondent No. 3 and from the State of U. P. arrayed as respondent No. 12. The writ petition succeeds with costs as indicated. Petition dismissed. .